Thompson v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
391 federal appellate · 163 district · 316 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,340 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson (1991)
391 federal appellate · 163 district · 316 state decisions — followed in 40 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedThompson v. Thompson (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738A
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Cannon v. University of Chicago · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.
Cited together with Cort v. Ash · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis · Cannon v. University of Chicago · California v. Sierra Club
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,340 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(a) A court of this State which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: "(1) This State (i) is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding or (ii) has been the child’s home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding, the child is absent from this State because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this State; or "(2) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this State assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this State, and (ii) there is available in this State substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships; or "(3) The child is physically present in this State, and (i) the child has been abandoned, or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected or dependent; or “(4)(i) It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with subdivision (1), (2) or (3) of this subsection, or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum to d”
33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“unless this congressional intent can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some other source, the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy simply does not exist.”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether to infer a private cause of action from a federal statute, our focal point is Congress' intent in enacting the statute.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.